[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions
On 25 April 2012 07:30, Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000
> Nick Piggin <> wrote:
>> > Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC.
>> > I believe it's not trivial now.
>> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own.
> There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool,
> percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock").  It
> wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path,
> under GFP_NOIO.

Yeah, that sucks. CFQ has something similar.

Should just allocate it up front when creating a throttled group.
Allocate and init when it first gets used schemes are usually pretty
problematic. Is it *really* warranted to do it lazily like this?

> Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I
> worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!
> I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was
> a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task
> context.  ie: pass the allocation mode via *current.  As a handy
> side-effect that would probably save quite some code where functions
> are receiving a gfp_t arg then simply passing it on to the next
> callee.

Both paragraphs make a lot of sense. Conceptually. :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-01 09:41    [W:0.155 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site